Cosmoline, you've completely missed the point of my post and missed the point of "Crash." My issue with Whedon's dialogue is that it is consciously cutesy. Just like the line you pulled from "Crash," Whedon's dialogue calls attention to itself as something artificial and forced. My mention of the movie "Crash" was not to highlight its dialogue but to highlight the difference in characterization. Character and dialogue are two different things. You can have good characters and bad dialogue.
“Crash” is more of a concept movie than it is a story movie. Everyone is having his or her preconceptions and prejudices challenged. Where Whedon gives a butch mercenary a girl’s name to create the incongruity, the characters in “Crash” actually do things that are incongruent because they have competing drives. Matt Dillon’s cop character is a racist; however, he believes he is a good, professional cop. The two beliefs contradict each other to a degree and create inconsistencies in his actions. He is willing to cross the line when a black lady mouths off and commits “contempt of cop” because he feels entitled to. However, he is willing to risk his life for a black lady in distress because he feels that comes with the badge and maybe his sense of decency seeks redemption. If you cannot see how that creates a much more complex character than simply giving a male character a girl’s name, I cannot help that.
How you concluded that "Crash" is left-wing nonsense is beyond me. Matt Dillon's cop character made a cogent, conservative argument how affirmative action programs further the prejudice, resentment, and inequities that they were formed to address. “Crash” framed the issues and offered them to the audience to discuss. Honestly, go back and think about the movie. The liberal cop ends up a murderer and the conservative, racist one ends up a hero. The black cop who is promoted because of political expediency frames an innocent white officer to climb the career ladder. –That’s hardly an endorsement of left-wing, liberal fantasies.
Regarding your thought that I do not appreciate the originality of “Firefly” and its depiction of smuggling cattle via a spaceship, you’re right. I do not find the thought of spaceships engaged in smuggling activities as particularly original in the Sci-Fi genre. That said, I do not fault Whedon for depicting it. It is merely a fact of life in that show. It’s not a groundbreaking plus. I’m not against the idea of showing a mix of technologies or the realities involved where groups at different economic levels have access to different levels of technology, but I do not think such differences is remotely original in Sci-Fi.
I’m not saying people can’t enjoy the series. My initial reply was simply to second someone else’s who did not enjoy the series. I don’t think an interest in shooting necessarily translates as a love of all things “Firefly.” Yes, you can shoot weapons and be bored by Whedon’s work. It is okay. -I stand by my reasons for not liking the show, but I recognize that you and others find it entertaining.
